re
vie
w
risk behaviors for Hiv infection. A review of emerging trends
Abstract HIV infection, acquired with the con-scious participation of the recipient, is a com-plex problem of international concern, especially among men who have sex with men. Behaviors emerge such as bareback (intentionally unprotect-ed anal sex between men) and bugchasing (bare-back sex when one participant is HIV+ and the other is not). A group of emerging risk behaviors for HIV infection was characterized. A review of the literature in the MEDLINE, Web of Science and regional SciELO databases was performed. HIV-related search terms such as unprotected sex, barebacking/bareback and bug chasing, were used. Bareback and bug chaser behaviors occur, among other factors, through social homonega-tivity, ART positive coverage, insufficient preven-tion campaigns, search for new sensapreven-tions and attempts to strengthen the relationship with the HIV+ member. Unprotected sex is primarily asso-ciated with having HIV/AIDS diagnoses, physical violence due to sexual orientation, viewing homo-sexual sex sites, and having bought or sold sex. It is necessary to work with individual behaviors that draw individuals close to infection.
Key words HIV, Behavior, Bareback, Risk, Sex
Yasel Manuel Santiesteban Díaz (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2566-4789) 1
Solon Alberto Orlando-Narváez (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5787-3115) 2
Rafael Ballester-Arnal (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4421-1144) 3
1 Instituto Nacional de
Investigación en Salud Pública. Av. de las Américas. Guayaquil Ecuador. yasel83@gmail.com
2 Universidad Agraria
del Ecuador. Guaiaquil Equador.
3 Universidad Jaume I.
Castellón de la Plana Castellón Espanha.
Sant
iest
eban
Díaz YM
introduction
The HIV/AIDS epidemic has been viewed from its social, economic and political realm and in its relationship with other Sexually Transmitted In-fections (STIs). However, there are still some gaps in the knowledge of the individual’s role, such as being vulnerable to acquire the infection, which could be summarized in a dynamic process in-volving different factors (social, environmental and cultural)1. So far, no vaccine or therapeutic
agent is capable of eliminating HIV. Thus, the response is prevention geared towards working with transmission routes and vulnerable groups.
Epidemiological trends since the mid-1990s suggest an alarming hike of unprotected sexual behaviors among men who have sex with men (MSM), a phenomenon found mainly in large homosexual communities2,3. These data show a
gradual increase in HIV infections in this popu-lation at the time4,5, especially among young gay
and bisexual men6,7.
At present, these behaviors have diversified and become increasingly complex. We observe behaviors such as the so-called bareback 9 (per-formance of intentional unprotected anal sex between men who are not steady partners); bug
chasing 10 (virus chasers), the act of
perform-ing bareback sex when one of the participants is HIV+ and the other is not; and gift giver 10 (the one giving a gift) (HIV+individuals who lend themselves to donate their virus to those who wish to receive it). Although media outlets have drawn attention to some trends that are unfavor-able to epidemic control efforts, they have not yet been adequately addressed by scientific studies. In all health problems, as is undoubtedly HIV, it is necessary to study how the process of trans-mission of the disease occurs. Several models have been developed to explain the context and causes of HIV/AIDS, as well as to identify the impacts of the epidemic and its control strate-gies. The model proposed by Coreil et al.8 breaks
down the three macro-environments where the determinants that influence the vulnerability of acquiring a transmissible disease develop: the so-cial environment, the biophysical environment and the culture-based environment. Gala et al.1
adapt this model to the issue of vulnerable be-havior, and they identify three types of HIV in-fection-related behaviors: behaviors that increase exposure to HIV, behaviors that facilitate HIV infection, and behaviors that protect against HIV infection. Therefore, it is presumed that there are risk behaviors that increase the probability of
ac-quiring the infection, and of specific protection that counteract the former and that can be iden-tified to study them as measurement variables of the acquisition process1. Of those that increase
the risk, the participation of the vulnerable in-dividual in the dynamics of virus dissemination acquires a considerable value for the targeting of prevention strategies. This study aims to conduct a literature review to characterize some emerging risk behaviors towards HIV infection.
Methods
A bibliographic review was conducted by search-ing in the Medline, Web of Science and region-al SciELO databases. Some HIV-related search terms used were unprotected sex, barebacking/
bareback, and bug chasing. Search was conducted
in Spanish and English, with no determination regarding the year the study was published. Only papers with one of the search terms reflecting in their title and which were available in the full-text version were selected. The reference lists of identified items were inspected to complement this process. The primary inclusion criterion was a substantial emphasis on intentional unprotect-ed sex behaviors somehow relatunprotect-ed to HIV infec-tion. Abstracts of congresses, letters to the editor and book reviews were excluded.
results
A total of 90 papers were found under the search terms. Of these, 62 belong to the term unprotect-ed sex-HIV, 26 belong to barebacking/bareback terms, and lastly, only two concern bug chaser. The results of the review of these terms will be described separately below.
Bareback
The phenomenon of barebacking has been examined from the perspective of sociology9-12,
psychology13-17, and public health16-23, among
other sciences. Despite the disparate perspectives, most of these reports agree on addressing defi-nitional issues and factors that may explain the popularity of unprotected barebacking sex.
The term bareback is an equestrian expres-sion that means riding without a saddle. It was first introduced outside the equestrian terms by O’Hara24 in 1997. It was later defined by
intention-aúd e C ole tiv a, 24(4):1417-1426, 2019
ally unprotected anal sex between men who are not a steady couple. The term bareback, quot-ing Bazaldúa26, is also known as “bareback sex”
or “natural sex” and can be differentiated from other risky sexual practices because of: 1) the intentionality and premeditation of performing the sexual act without adopting a barrier method such as condom in its multiple presentations; 2) the focus on anal sex practices among men; 3) the temporal and cultural reference after the emer-gence and spread of HIV/AIDS.
Bareback studies have been mainly written in the USA9,12-15,18,21 although some approaches
are found in Europe17 and Latin countries such
as Mexico19,26 and Brazil10,11,23. Barebackers are a
group with disruptive practices within the gay world and are a change in the values and mean-ings associated with what is considered political-ly correct in the field of HIV prevention, such as the appropriate and systematic use of condoms19.
In general terms, researchers and scholars have concluded two critical elements that had to be included in the definition of barebacking: the intentionality of unprotected sex and the accep-tance of the risk of contracting STI/HIV15,27. Due
to the hidden nature of the MSM population, bareback prevalence rates cannot be retrieved ac-curately. However, some investigations approach the problem from measures of self-reported be-havior. For example, a cross-sectional study con-ducted in New York28,29 indicates a prevalence of
34.9-45.5%, another in San Francisco 10%15, in
Central Arizona 65%30, 12.3% in London17 and
between 39.2% and 83.9% of MSM who report online to practice bareback throughout the Unit-ed States28,31.
Factors associated with barebacking
Several authors have tried to explain bare-backing from different methodological designs, population, and theoretical approaches. In a review study on this practice, Berg16 proposes a
conceptual model that reflects the dynamics of the relationships that serve as the basis for under-standing barebacking. This author proposes four levels in which this behavior develops.
Macro level
One of the essential factors that influence these behaviors is the ideology of heterosexuals, which is restrictive and alienating for homosexu-als. This series of arrogant heterosexual concepts and beliefs have in some way caused the
emer-gence of the so-called “homonegativism”, con-tributing to the social rejection of homosexuals as minorities. Some social researchers32,33 frame
barebacking in an oppressive society where some homosexual men, in protest, affirm transgressive behaviors such as bareback. Another critical is-sue is associated with the effects and positive coverage of Antiretroviral Therapy, which has undoubtedly allowed a slowing of the progres-sion of the disease and significantly reduced AIDS-related deaths. This progress has caused the homosexual community to perceive HIV as another chronic disease, which is easily managed by doctors extending survival years, which, there-fore, contributes to the maintenance of bareback behaviors since concern about seroconversion is reduced.
The Internet has become a social structure that provides dating services through endless opportunities, among which are chat rooms, per-sonal ads, email lists, and so forth. This platform facilitates and serves as a means for barebackers to find pairs. The homosexual community also considers it the most common medium28. The
results of studies on Internet use31,34,35 show how
63% of homosexuals use the Internet to search for partners, and barebackers use this network the most.
Meso-level
Among the factors related to the emergence of barebacking, in a 2001 study, Carballo-Dié-guez36 mention the lack of social activism in
cam-paigns in favor of the homosexual community’s rights, as well as a feeling that the cultural climate in which homosexuals developed had changed, and an increased lack of responsibility was not-ed. Also, another study shows that barebackers report a lower perception of sexual protection norms compared to the population that does not practice bareback31.
interpersonal level
Other factors that promote bareback are re-lated to shared sexual behaviors, such as unpro-tected anal sex, which are interpersonal processes in which meaning is created and emotions are expressed with the sexual partner34. Other
stud-ies show that the serological status of the sexu-al partner seems irrelevant. In a recent study, a quarter of HIV negative or unknown barebackers reported that their sexual partners were HIV+ or unaware of their seropositivity37.
Sant
iest
eban
Díaz YM
Internet sex dating sites include discussion of sexual preference and serological status. Also, one can fill this informationin user profiles. However, in the specific sites of barebacking users, any dis-cussion about serological status and condom use is waived since entering these sites assumes that this rule is unconditionally accepted.
intrapersonal level
There are three main approaches at this lev-el. The first is related to the sociodemographic characteristics of barebackers. Barebacking has been studied in white, black and Latino men, and whites were the most prevalent. Barebackers are associated with variables such as lower edu-cational level, young age and HIV29,38,39. Another
important and central aspect of this whole plot is related to the reasons why barebackingis per-formed.
One of the most described reasons is the de-sire for pleasure and seeking new sensations. Oth-ers are related to the affirmation of masculinity, a display of virility and greater masculine sexuality. The romantic obsession is another category very much related to sexual adventure, sexual com-pulsivity and search of sexual sensations. These results are based on the thesis that barebackers are possibly the seekers of sexual sensations that show a higher intensity and willingness to accept or even seek sexual risk encounters40. Finally, the
consumption of alcohol and psychoactive sub-stances has been associated with barebacking in various studies.
Bug Chaser
The “Bug Chasers” group is a homosexual subculture that voluntarily shows a willingness to acquire HIV41. The first approaches to the
subject were mainly press reports42-45. However, a
group of written papers where the subject is ad-dressed more clearly41,46-49 is already found in the
literature. Faced with this risky behavior, a logi-cal question arises: What differences lie between Barebackers and Bug Chasers?
Some authors have addressed the issue of Barebackers and Bug Chasers as if these behaviors were the same42,50. Although they share
common-alities, such as homosexual sexual orientation and the performance of unprotected anal sex, it is essential to clarify that the primary intention of the Bug Chaser is seeking HIV infection. In the case of the Barebackers, one of the previous-ly commented reasons as to why these practices
were produced is the desire for pleasure and seek-ing new sensations.Bug Chasers may also share these unique sensations to which the fact of the possibility of becoming infected as a relevant ex-tra element is added. Bugchasing is also deemed intensely erotic and the act of being infected is for them the ultimate taboo, the extreme sexual act there is.It is also known that someone that is HIV-negative and in a relationship with someone who is HIV+ looks for the infection as a way to strengthen the relationship, especially when the HIV+partner could end the relationship to avoid transmission of the virus to his seronegative partner. In a study conducted in the USA with a user population of barebacking sites41, it was first
established that the issue of the existence of Bug Chasers was not a legend, and then that the use of drugs was more likely in Barebackers than in Bug Chasers, which clears all doubtsconcerning the performance of these acts unconsciously.
Unprotected sex
In the field of sexual risk, a sexual risk behav-ior would be the exposure of the individual to a situation that may cause harm to his health or the health of another person, primarily through the possibility of infection by sexually transmit-ted diseases such as HIV51. HIV continues to
spread worldwide mainly through sexual trans-mission and mainly among MSM. A group of studies in different regions and countries around the world has addressed the issue of the factors associated with these risk practices in the MSM group.In Europe, data collected from the Euro-pean Men-Who-Have-Sex-With-Men Internet Survey52 show that unprotected sex in this
pop-ulation is mainly associated with being diag-nosed with HIV/AIDS, having suffered violence physical due to sexual orientation in the last 12 months, having viewed Gay sex sites in the last 4 weeks, having bought or sold sex, knowledge that antiretroviral treatment reduces the risk of infection, drug use, feelings of loneliness and ex-perience of sexual abuse and intimidation. An-other study conducted in Lebanon53 shows some
determinants of unprotected anal sex behaviors, such as having a younger age, university edu-cation, being in a committed relationship, little communication about HIV/AIDS with a partner, discrimination due to sexual orientation and low self-efficacy in the use of condoms. In Asia, specifically in China54, a study was conducted to
determine the prevalence and factors associated with unprotected anal intercourse among MSM.
aúd e C ole tiv a, 24(4):1417-1426, 2019
A prevalence of 52.4% of unprotected sexual in-tercourse in the previous three months was re-ported, and the multivariate analysis showed that trust and intimacy within the relationship with the steady partner and the presence of clinical symptoms of depression were positively associ-ated with unprotected anal sex.
Effectively within the topic related to risk be-haviors, the relationship of depression with un-protected sex among MSM is being studied55-57.
The first line of thinking supports the idea that depression decreases men’s libido by mak-ing them less sexually active58,59. Consequently,
during periods of active depression, men’s par-ticipation in risk behaviors will be lower than at other times when they are not depressed or when they are experiencing less depressive symptoms.
On the other hand, the second line of thought alleges that men who are depressed in-cur substance abuse and risky sexual behaviors as a means of escape to cope with their negative emotional state56,60.
Finally, an interesting topic to address that has been hardly written about is undoubtedly the issue of unprotected sex in females. Accord-ing to some studies, unprotected sex is perceived by women as a promoter of intimacy between the couple, romance, trust and as a support for stability in the couple61-63. A focus group study
involving a total of 43 women from different cities in the U.S. mainly aimed to gain an under-standing of the reasons why young adult women from urban areas with high HIV prevalence had unprotected sex with men whom they perceived with some mistrust64. The discourse of women at
first was nuanced by the idea of sex as a means to ensure a partner in a society where most women seek to satisfy the men’s desires regardless of the risk because, otherwise, men look out elsewhere for many others who are willing to do so. They also argue that if men treat them well, provide them with financial security and fulfill their re-sponsibilities, the risky behaviors they may resort to as long as the man feels satisfied do not matter. These women argued that having unprotected sex was a strategy, since women know what they want in relationships in the long run and that develop-ing strategies from the statement “Sex to secure him, sex to compensate” is an example of unpro-tected sexual intercourse as a strategy to maintain long-term commitment. After having unprotect-ed sex with high-risk partners, these women felt worried and wanted to be tested for HIV. The in-teresting thing about all of this is that they contin-ued to have unprotected sex despite these alerts.
Discussion
This paper collects a review of a group of behav-iors that put health at risk, mainly of the popula-tion of men who have sex with other men around the world. Within the HIV epidemic, significant changes have taken place at the level of health policies, such as scientific and technical advances, in order to provide a comprehensive response to address the multiple consequences of HIV/AIDS infection to health and systems.
The very fact that there are human behaviors that promote, cause and, in some cases, inten-tionally seek out a disease, undoubtedly shows a different perspective for the organization of pre-ventive plans. According to Cuadra-Hernández65,
we are witnessing the “so-called ‘prevention fa-tigue’, in which fatigue is implicit in the tradi-tional message of condom use, and is a clear ex-ample that current strategies do not consider the meanings of the main groups affected regarding their sexuality.” The truth is that the perceived risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS decreases by the day. This disease has gone from being a disease associ-ated with an idea of immediate death to the idea of a drug-controlled chronic disease.
This review shows some realities which sci-ence must take into account to plan preventive systems. At a social level, we find the ongoing rejection of homosexuals. Unfortunately, the problem is recurrent despite the “development” achieved in the promotion of social rights, equal-ity and non-discrimination towards this com-munity. This process has resulted in the so-called homonegativism, which is defined as a group of prejudiced beliefs, emotional reactions, and be-haviors of stigmatization towards homosexuals66.
Some social researchers32,33 frame barebacking in
an oppressive society where some homosexual men, in protest, claim transgressive behaviors such as bareback. Undoubtedly, these reactions of the MSM community that lead to risky behav-iors endanger health, showing once again that so-cial pressure towards minority groups affects not only the affected person’s emotional realm, but also behaviors that can lead to death.
Continuing with the issue of risk we find a facilitating entity which is undoubtedly the In-ternet. The network of networks provides an essential platform for all kinds of sexual behav-iors to be managed among MSM. The social networks that comprise it serve as a facilitator to find a partner and to discuss sexual standards and expectations. According to studies by Car-ballo-Diéguez36,67, most of the MSM-related sites
Sant
iest
eban
Díaz YM
display sex images without a condom and a web-design with information of highly sex-oriented profiles that include previously determined fields to obtain detailed information on the expected sexual activity. The above highlights that many of the high-risk behaviors are anticipated by fan-tasy, which in turn translates into settings created by men in articulation with the possibilities and situations they would like the website to develop with the practices that they wish to access, which usually includes identifiable elements of risk.
At the individual level, another important fac-tor that has contributed to the decreased percep-tion of the risk of acquiring HIV and increased risk behaviors is undoubtedly related to antiret-roviral therapy (ART). According to Ostrow et al.68, the triple therapy, as it is also known, has
modified the natural history of HIV infection, causing a considerable reduction in mortality, intercurrent complications, and hospitalizations. So much change has undoubtedly led the infec-tion to be perceived no longer as associated with death, but rather as a long-term chronic disease and with several medical alternatives69. These
au-thors found in this study that more than 50% of a sample of MSM had had unprotected sex, indi-cating that the arrival of ART had reduced their concern for protection.
The consumption of alcohol and psychoac-tive substances are behaviors that serve as gate-ways to behaviors at risk of HIV acquisition.
Studies conducted in Africa show an association that is replicated in the rest of the world: peo-ple who drink, consume and inject psychoactive substances more are more engaged in risk be-haviors and are more likely to acquire an HIV infection69-73. One of the most accurate theories
to explain this relationship is proposed by Steele & Josephs74, and they called it the “Theory of
My-opia”. This theory argues that drugs reduce the ability of individual cognitive processing and block the response to conflict with some inhibi-tion. Unprotected sexual intercourse is in itself a conflict for many individuals and this dissonance is suppressed with the ingestion of these drugs. Many people believe that drugs and sex go hand in hand. Some users exchange sex for drugs, or for money to buy drugs. Some people associate the use of drugs with unprotected sex.
Without a doubt, we are witnessing an era of changes and these transformations are not al-ways accompanied by advances in health indica-tors and improvement of the systems responsible for planning strategies and preventing diseases. One of the most critical challenges has to do with the behaviors that place the individual closer to the disease. This group of behaviors is perfect-ly preventable through an adequate promotion and prevention, but to do this, we must gain an in-depth knowledge of the dynamics of the pro-cesses that participate and cause the illness of a human being.
aúd e C ole tiv a, 24(4):1417-1426, 2019 Collaborations
YM Santiesteban Díaz was responsible for the drafting, general review, methodological de-sign and final approval of the paper. A Or-lando-Narváez contributed to the review and drafting of the Bareback theme and the general review of the epidemiological topics. RB Arnal contributed to the review and drafting of the Bug Chaser theme and supported the drafting of the topics related to the behaviors and psychosocial elements of the text.
Sant
iest
eban
Díaz YM
references
1. Gala González A, Berdasquera Corcho D, Pérez Avila J, Pinto Valluerca J, Suárez Valdéz J, Joanes Fiol J, Sánchez L, Aragonés Lopez C, Díaz González, M. Dinámica de adquisición del VIH en su dimensión social, ambiental y cultural. Rev Cubana Med Trop 2007; 59(2):90-97. 2. Chen JL, Kodagoda D, Lawrence AM, Kerndt PR.
Rap-id public health interventions in response to an out-break of syphilis in Los Angeles. Sex Transm Dis 2002; 29(5):277-284.
3. Wolitski RJ, Valdiserri RO, Denning PH, Levine WC. Are we headed for a resurgence in the HIV epidem-ic among men who have sex with men? Am J Publepidem-ic
Health 2001; 91(6):883-888.
4. Kellogg T, McFarland W, Katz M. Recent increase in HIV seroconversions among repeat anonymous testers in San Francisco. AIDS 1999; 13(16):2303-2304. 5. Van de Ven P, Prestage G, Crawford J, Grulich A,
Kip-pax S. Gay men in Australia who do not have HIV test results. Int J STD AIDS 2000; 11(7):456-460.
6. Koblin BA, Torian LV, Gulin V, Ren L, MacKellar DA, Valleroy LA. High prevalence of HIV infection among young men who have sex with men in New York City.
AIDS 2000; 14(12):1793-1800.
7. Valleroy LA, MacKellar DA, Karon JM, Rosen DH, McFarland W, Shehan DA, Stoyanoff SR, LaLota M, Celentano DD, Koblin BA, Thiede H, Katz MH, Tori-an LV, JTori-anssen RS. HIV prevalence Tori-and associated risks in young men who have sex with men. JAMA 2000; 284(2):198-204.
8. Coreil J, Whiteford L, Salazar D. The household ecology
of disease transmission: Dengue fever in the Dominican Republic. Inhorn MC, Brown PJ, editors. The
Anthro-pology of Infectious Disease: International Health Perspectives. Atlanta: Gordon and Breach Publishers; 2000.
9. Shernoff M. Condomless Sex: Gay Men, Barebacking, and Harm Reduction. Social Work 2006; 51(2):106-113. 10. Silva, LA. Cybersexuality and online research: some
reflections about the concept of barebacking. Interface
(Botucatu) 2010;14(34):513-528.
11. Silva LA, Iriart JA. Practices and meanings of bareback-ing among HIV-positive men who have sex with men.
Interface (Botucatu) 2010; 14(35):739-752.
12. Nuno N, Pamela V, Ana V, Emily M, Carballo AD. The Internet profiles of men who have sex with men within bareback websites. Cult Health Sex 2011; 13(9):1015-1029.
13. Lewin EW, Leap L. Out in theory: The emergence of
les-bian and gay anthropology. Chicago: University of
Illi-nois Press; 2002.
14. Cole, GW. Barebacking: Transformations, dissocia-tions, and the theatre of countertransference. Studies in
Gender and Sexuality 2007; 8(1):49-68.
15. Mansergh G, Marks G, Colfax GN, Guzman R, Rader M, Buchbinder S. ‘Barebacking’ in a diverse sample of men who have sex with men. AIDS 2002; 16(4):653-659.
16. Berg RC. Barebacking: A Review of the Literature.
Ar-chives of Sexual Behavior 2009; 38(5):754-764.
17. Elford J, Bolding G, Davis M, Sherr L, Hart G. Bare-backing among HIV-positive gay men in London.
Sex-ually Transmitted Diseases 2007; 34(2):93-98.
18. Halkitis PN. Behavioral patterns, identity, and health characteristics of self-identified barebackers: Implica-tions for HIV prevention andintervention. Journal of
GLBT Health Research 2007; 3(1):37-48.
19. Cuadra-Hernández SM, Baruch-Domínguez R, César I, Granados-Cosme JA. Dame una pastilla”: los signifi-cados del VIH/sida en la práctica del bareback en la ciudad de México e implicaciones para la prevención.
Salud Pública de México 2015; 57(2):113-118.
20. Bauermeister JA, Carballo-Diéguez A, Ventuneac A, Dolezal C. Assessing motivations to engage in inten-tional condomless anal intercourse in HIV-risk con-texts (“bareback sex”) among men who have sex with men. AIDS Educ Prev 2009; 21(2):156-168.
21. Iván CB, Carballo-Diéguez A, Ventuneac A, Robert HR, Dolezal C, Ford J. HIV-negative Men-who-Have-Sex-with-Men who Bareback are Concerned about HIV Infection: Implications for HIV Risk Reduction Inter-ventions. Arch Sex Behav 2013; 42(2):279-289 22. Frasca T, Ventuneac A, Balan I, Carballo-Diéguez A.
In-ner Contradictions Among Men Who Bareback. Qual
Health Res 2012; 22(7):946-956.
23. Silva LA. Redução de riscos na perspectiva dos prati-cantes de barebacking: possibilidades e desafios. Redu-ção de riscos na perspectiva dos praticantes de bareba-cking: possibilidades e desafíos. Psicología & Sociedade 2012; 24(2):327-336.
24. O’Hara S. Autopornography. New York: Haworth; 1997. 25. Goodroad BK, Kirksey KM, Butensky E. Bareback sex
and gay men: An HIV prevention failure. J Assoc Nurses
AIDS Care 2000; 11(6):29-36.
26. Bazaldúa D. Evaluación actitudinal y conceptos asocia-dos al Bareback en hombres que tienen sexo con otros hombres en la Ciudad de Mexico. Revista Salud &
So-ciedad 2010; 1(1):41-50.
27. Vasconcelos LA. Barebacking e a possibilidade de so-roconversão. Cad Saude Publica 2009; 25(6):1381-1389 28. Halkitis PN, Parsons JT. Intentional unsafe sex (bare-backing) among HIV-positive gay men who seek sexual partners on the Internet. AIDS Care 2003; 15(3):367-378.
29. Halkitis PN, Wilton L, Galatowitsch P. What’s in a term? How gay and bisexual men understand bare-backing. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 2005c; 9(3-4):35-48.
30. Huebner DM, Proescholdbell RJ, Nemeroff CJ. Do gay and bisexual men share researchers’ definition of barebacking? Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 2006; 18(1):67-77.
31. Berg RC. Barebacking among MSM Internet users.
AIDS and Behavior 2008; 12(5):822-833.
32. Blechner MJ. Intimacy, pleasure, risk, and safety: Dis-cussion of Cheuvront’s ‘High-risk sexual behavior in the treatment of HIV negative patients’. Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy 2002; 6(3):27-33.
33. Crossley ML. Making sense of ‘barebacking’: Gay men’s narratives, unsafe sex, and the ‘resistance habitus’.
Brit-ish Journal of Social Psychology 2004; 43(Pt 2):225-244.
34. Mansergh G, Marks G, Colfax GN, Guzman R, Rader M, Buchbinder S. ‘Barebacking’ in a diverse sample of men who have sex with men. AIDS 2002; 16(4):653-659.
aúd e C ole tiv a, 24(4):1417-1426, 2019
35. Jonas K J, Hawk ST, Vastenburg D, de Groot P. ‘Bare-back’’Pornography Consumption and Safe-Sex Inten-tions of Men Having Sex with Men. Arch Sex Behav 2014; 43(4):745-753.
36. Carballo-Dieguez A. HIV, barebacking, and gay men’s sexuality, circa 2001. Journal of Sex Education and
Ther-apy 2001; 26:225-233.
37. Berg RC. Barebacking among MSM Internet users.
AIDS and Behavior 2008; 12(5):822-833.
38. Wilton L, Halkitis PN, English G, Roberson M. An exploratory study of barebacking, club drug use, and meanings of sex in Black and Latino gay and bisexual men in the age of AIDS. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Psy-chotherapy 2005; 9(3-4):49-72.
39. Carballo-Diéguez A, Ventuneac A, Dowsett GW, Balan I, Bauermeister J, Remien RH, et al. Sexual Pleasure and Intimacy Among Men who Engage in “Bareback sex.
AIDS Behav 2011; 15(1):57-65.
40. Carballo-Dieguez A, Bauermeister J. ‘‘Barebacking’’: Intentional condomless anal sex in HIV-risk contexts. Reasons for and against it. Journal of Homosexuality 2004; 47(1):1-16.
41. Moskowitz DA, Roloff ME. The Existence of a Bug Chasing Subculture. Culture, Health and Sexuality 2010; 9(4):347-357.
42. Gendin S. Riding bareback: Skin-on skin sex been there, done that, want more. POZ Magazine 1997; 25:64-65. 43. Gauthier DK, Forsyth CJ. Bareback sex, bug
chas-ing, and the gift of death. Deviant Behaviour 1999; 20(1):85-100.
44. Freeman GA. In search of death. Rolling Stone 2003; 915:44-48.
45. Hatfield K. A Quest for belonging: exploring the story of the bug chasing phenomenon. Paper presented at the
National Communication Association Conference;
Chi-cago; IL; 2004.
46. Graydon M. Don’t Bother to Wrap It: Online Giftgiver and Bugchaser Newsgroups, the Social. Impact of Gift Exchanges and the “Carnivalesque”. Culture, Health &
Sexuality 2007; 9(3):277-292.
47. Grov C, Parsons JT. Bug Chasing and Gift Giving: The Potential for HIV transmission Among Barebackers on the Internet. AIDS Education and Prevention 2006; 18(6):490-503.
48. Moskowitz DA, Roloff ME. The Ultimate High: Sexual Addiction and the Bug. Chasing Phenomenon. Sexual
Addiction and Compulsivity 2007; 14(1):21-40.
49. Malkowski Jennifer. Beyond Prevention: Containment Rhetoric in the Case of Bug Chasing. J Med Humanit 2014; 35(2):211-228.
50. Peyser M. A deadly dance. Newsweek 1997; 130:76-77. 51. Espada-Sánchez JP, Quiles-Sebastián MJ,
Méndez-Car-rillo JM. Conductas sexuales de riesgo y prevención del Sida en la adolescencia. Papeles del Psicólogo 2003; 24(85):1-15.
52. Kramer C S, Schmidt JA, Berg CR, Furegato M, Hos-pers H, Folch C, Marcus U, EMIS Network. Factors as-sociated with unprotected anal sex with multiple non-steady partners in the past 12 months: results from the European Men-Who-Have-Sex-With-Men Internet Survey (EMIS 2010). BMC Public Health 2016; 16:47.
53. Glenn JW, Hoover M, Green H, Tohme J, Mokhbat J. Social, Relational and Network Determinants of Un-protected Anal Sex and HIV Testing Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Beirut, Lebanon. Int J Sex Health 2015; 27(3):264-275.
54. Li D, Li C, Wang Z, Lau JTF. Prevalence and Associated Factors of Unprotected Anal Intercourse with Regu-lar Male Sex Partners among HIV Negative Men Who Have Sex with Men in China: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
PLoS ONE 2015 10(3):e0119977.
55. Safren SA, Traeger L, Skeer MR, O’Cleirigh C, Meade CS, Covahey C, Mayer KH. Testing a social-cognitive model of HIV transmission risk behaviors in HIV in-fected MSM with and without depression. Health
Psy-chology 2010; 29(2):215-221.
56. DeSantis JP, Vasquez EP. A pilot study to evaluate eth-nic/racial differences in depressive symptoms, self-es-teem, and sexual behaviors among men who have sex with men. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 2011; 23(2):147-164.
57. Klein H. Depression and HIV Risk Taking among Men Who Have Sex with Other Men (MSM) and Who Use the Internet to Find Partners for Unprotected Sex. J
Gay Lesbian Ment Health 2014; 18(2):164-189.
58. Bancroft J, Janssen E, Strong D, Vukadinovic Z. The relation between mood and sexuality in gay men.
Ar-chives of Sexual Behavior 2003; 32(3):231-242.
59. Phillips RL, Slaughter JR. Depression and sexual desire.
Am Fam Physician 2000; 62(4):782-786.
60. Parsons JT, Halkitis PN. Sexual and drug-using practic-es of HIV-positive men who frequent public and com-mercial sex environments. AIDS Care 2002; 14(6):815-826.
61. Diekman AB, McDonald M, Gardner WL. Love means never having to be careful: The relationship between reading romance novels and safe sex behavior.
Psychol-ogy of Women Quarterly 2000; 24(2):179-188.
62. Jones R. The reliability and validity of the sexual pres-sure scale. Res Nurs Health 2006; 29(4):281-293. 63. Jones R. Sex scripts and power: A framework to explain
urban women’s HIV sexual risk with male partners.
Nurs Clin North Am 2006; 41(3):425-436.
64. Jones R, Oliver M. Young Urban Women’s Patterns of Unprotected Sex with Men Engaging in HIV Risk Be-haviors. AIDS Behav 2007; 11(6):812-821.
65. Cuadra-Hernández SM, Baruch-Domínguez R, Infante C, Granados-Cosme JA. “Dame una pastilla”: los signi-ficados del VIH/sida en la práctica del bareback en la ciudad de México e implicaciones para la prevención.
Salud Publica Mex 2015; 57(2):113-118.
66. Currie M, Cunningham E, Findlay B. The Short In-ternalized Homonegativity Scale: Examination of the Factorial Structure of a New Measure of Internalized Homophobia. Educational and Psychological
Measure-ment 2004; 64(6):1053-1067.
67. Carballo-Dieguez A, Dowsett GW, Ventuneac A, Re-mien RH, Balan I, Dolezal C, Luciano O, Lin P. Cy-bercartography of popular Internet sites used by New York City men who have sex with men interested in bareback sex. AIDS Education and Prevention 2006; 18(6):475-489.
Sant
iest
eban
Díaz YM
68. Ostrow DE, Fox KJ, Chmiel JS, Silvestre A, Visscher BR, Vanable PA, Jacobson LP, Strathdee SA. Attitudes to-wards highly active antiretroviral therapy are associat-ed with sexual risk taking among HIV-infectassociat-ed and un-infected homosexual men. AIDS 2002; 16(5):775-780. 69. Woolf-King SE, Maisto SA. Alcohol use and high-risk
sexual behavior in Sub-Saharan Africa: a narrative re-view. Arch Sex Behav 2011; 40(1):17-42.
70. Shuper PA, Joharchi N, Irving H, Rehm J. Alcohol as a correlate of unprotected sexual behavior among peo-ple living with HIV/AIDS: Review and meta-analysis.
AIDS Behav 2009; 13(6):1021-1036.
71. Baliunas D, Rehm J, Irving H, Shuper P. Alcohol consumption and risk of incident human immuno-deficiency virus infection: a meta-analysis. Int J Public
Health 2010; 55(3):159-166.
72. Scott-Sheldon LJ, Walstrom P, Carey K, Johnson B, Carey M. Alcohol use and sexual risk behaviors among individuals infected with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2012 to early 2013. Current HIV/AIDS
Rep 2013; 10(4):314-323.
73. Steele CM, Josephs RA. Alcohol myopia. Its prized and dangerous effects. Am Psychol 1990; 45(8):921-933.
Article submitted 16/11/2016 Approved 27/06/2017
Final version submitted 29/06/2017
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
BY CC
